THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display    

For the benefit of my colleagues who were not here for the earlier part of the debate, let me explain what we are talking about while I am waiting for

[Page: S8654]  GPO's PDF

   As Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond have eloquently pointed out, it is always a struggle to get the funding to fill these needs, but they have done a great job in getting additional funding this year for that purpose.

   The problem is, whereas the drinking water portion is allocated on the basis of EPA's recommendations and what they call the needs survey, there is no such reference to EPA recommendations with respect to wastewater treatment. Instead, we are reverting to a formula based on 1970s data. It has never been updated since the action was put into place in 1987.

   There is a legitimate suggestion we ought to go to the authorizing committee to try to fix this. The authorizing committee has had 14 years to try to correct this, and my staff has repeatedly tried to make contact with people to see if they would be interested in doing it.

   Thus far, we have not had any success. Despite the fact that the chairman of the committee has indicated his willingness to take up the reauthorization this fall, there is no commitment to take up a modification of the formula to meet the needs of the high gross States about which I have been talking. There is absolutely no reason to think we will succeed this year in modifying the formula through the authorizing committee. Even if we were to succeed in doing that, the States I named would receive tremendous shortfalls for the fiscal year 2002. There is no way to fix it for the fiscal year 2002. I have a couple of communities in my State that are in dire need of this funding. There is no way they can get it.

   We suggested this formula change, which is very simple. It says we should use the needs survey of the EPA and provide 97.5 percent of the funding available in accordance with that recommendation, and we have a minimum and a maximum so that no State gets more than 8 percent and no State gets less than the minimum we provide. That is similar to other formulas. It is very fair. It is very simple. It is easy to apply. The net result, based upon the charts I showed earlier, will go a significant degree toward not only providing funding for those States and localities that need it the most, but reducing the significant unfairness in the formula that exists today. That is what we are talking about. It is that simple.

   For those Senators from the following States, I hope since they will receive more money--again, let me note we are not affecting earmarks. We have included the earmarks.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time controlled by the Senator from Arizona has expired.

   Ms. MIKULSKI. First, an inquiry about the time. Did the Senator from Arizona consume the time to be allocated to the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Fitzgerald?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

   Mr. KYL. I inquire of the Senator from Maryland, maybe I misunderstood the unanimous consent request. I thought because the Schumer time had been yielded back that all the remaining time was divided.

   Ms. MIKULSKI. That is correct. That is my understanding.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state the time is parsed into three allocations, three 10-minute segments: One for the Senator from Arizona, one each for the chairman of the subcommittee, and the ranking member.

   Mr. KYL. I say to Senator Mikulski, if Senator Fitzgerald arrives, perhaps we can accommodate him in some way.

   Ms. MIKULSKI. As I understand, the distinguished ranking member has 10 minutes. I am sure he will be happy to yield. We will not preclude Senator Fitzgerald from offering a comment.

   We have debated the contents on this bill for a good part of the morning. I think it has been a very constructive debate and a civil debate, which we hope the Senate would be.

   I will talk about process for a minute. The Kyl amendment is legislating on appropriations. Ordinarily, I would offer a point of order exactly on that, to knock it down on the point of order under the rules of the Senate.

   Because of something the House did--and remember, we work off the House bill, as I understand it, and I believe the Senator's analysis is accurate. We are not able to do that, so this will be a straight up or down--it will not be straight up or down. Either Senator Bond and I have declared our intent to offer a motion to table, which I am not yet offering, but we really are legislating on appropriations. This is so complicated.

   Even with the good will from the standpoint of the Senator from Arizona, myself, and Senator Bond, the ranking member, where we tried to explain this formula over that formula or that survey, it shows how complex this is. In fairness, to make sure we have a formula that works for constituents, works for the communities, works for the taxpayer, we cannot deal with this formula on the Senate floor. This truly must be done through the authorizing process.

   I acknowledge the problems the Senator from Arizona has had when he says it has been 14 years and it is time to take a new look and a fresh look. Acknowledging the need for a new and fresh look, I also encourage the Senator in the most collegial tone possible, to also be in discussions with the very able administrator of EPA. I have found Administrator Whitman to be able, accessible, interested in hearing about specific issues and specific problems. We did bring the Senator's amendment to the EPA staff. They furnished a very competent analysis.

   In fact, it was through them that we identified the error in the drafting.

   I do not really recommend that this amendment be agreed to. We really do not know the consequences of the amendment. There is no way to evaluate the consequences of the amendment. It could have very dire effects.

   There is no latitude to offer a point of order. We will be offering a motion to table the amendment, but we do not want to table the problem.

   The problem is a real problem. This is why, again, with the encouragement of the authorizers, I really share with my colleagues, working with Administrator Whitman has been a very positive experience from this Senator's viewpoint. I suggest perhaps the Senator and colleagues who are so passionate about this issue, as they have expressed themselves on the floor, meet with her and get EPA to start working on the analysis of exactly the consequences, which we would need should we come to an authorizing hearing. Then, if the authorizing hearings do not quite get to it, we would have the benefit of their analysis and their thinking.

   Let's not table the problem. One of us will move to table this amendment. But, again, I do not want to table the problem.

   I know the time is growing short. We are awaiting Senator FITZGERALD. We know Senator Bond is temporarily off the floor at a meeting with some of his Republican colleagues. I believe the moderates are meeting. He is available.

   I will reserve my time for the end. I ask the Presiding Officer, how much time do I have?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 3 minutes 10 seconds remaining. The Senator from Missouri has 10 minutes.

   Ms. MIKULSKI. I inquire of the Senator from Illinois how much time he will need.

   Mr. FITZGERALD. Only a couple of minutes; 5 minutes will be fine.

   Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent 5 minutes from the time of the minority be allocated to the Senator from Illinois.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for her generosity.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.

   Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Maryland for yielding me the time.

   I rise to support my friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl, and compliment

[Page: S8655]  GPO's PDF

   As I understand it, Senator Kyl's new formula is based on the same formula that is used in the safe drinking water revolving fund. It certainly will make for a better need-based distribution of these important allocations of funds for wastewater treatment around the country.

   I rise to support Senator Kyl's amendment. I understand the Presiding Officer has joined as a cosponsor. This seems to be good legislation for our State and a majority of States around the country. We all know from local communities around our States how important these funds are for these water treatment projects.

   I hope we will have a majority vote in favor of this amendment.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

   Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Allen from Virginia be also listed as a cosponsor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Who yields time? If no one yields time, time will be deducted from the time remaining to both sides.

   Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, let's be clear. This amendment totally changes the water formula--totally. New York loses $14 million, Maryland loses $2 million. There are winners and there are losers. Under what I am suggesting, we table this and end this debate but we encourage the authorizers to really face the problem of water infrastructure needs and to ask the Administrator of the EPA to evaluate these formulas, taking into consideration the needs of our communities, the new census data, and that we act in a prudent and measured way.

   This is not the place to do this legislation. It is absolutely not the place to do this legislation.

   I yield the floor and ask how much time I have remaining.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 1 minute 15 seconds remaining.

   Ms. MIKULSKI. I reserve that time.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has 7 minutes 45 seconds.

   The Senator from Missouri.

   Mr. BOND. Mr. President, let me just check on the time status. We are to begin the votes at 1:50; is that correct?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 1:55.

   Mr. BOND. Is there to be a time period for the proponents and opponents prior to that 1:50, or are we to use the time that is now allotted to us?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 1:55 there will be 2 minutes equally divided before the first vote and 2 minutes equally divided before the second vote.

   Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes from the time I have remaining.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 46 seconds remaining.

   Mr. BOND. I will use that.

   Mr. President, again, I commend Senator Kyl, the Senator from Arizona, for bringing to our attention the very important issue of how these vitally important funds are allocated. I have raised my concerns that the allocation he seeks to add in the appropriations bill should go through a thorough process in the authorizing committee because it is very complex.

   I have looked at the formula that has developed. I find that it has many, many different aspects. He has figured in earmarks that are not included in the allocation. There is a 1-year formula that is extremely confusing. The EPA has already advised us they would not know how to implement it. Certainly the more I see of it the more I believe it must have a thorough discussion, debate, hearings, and the work of the markup in the authorizing committee.

   I commend him for bringing this to our attention. I urge my colleagues to support our tabling motion.

   On behalf of the Senator from Vermont, the chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I move to table the Kyl amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Maryland yield back her time?

   Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the time.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

   There is a sufficient second.

   The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the roll.

   The legislative clerk called the roll.

   Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. DOMENICI) is absent because of a death in the family.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BAYH). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

   The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 41, as follows:

   Akaka

   Bond

   Breaux

   Byrd

   Cantwell

   Carnahan

   Carper

   Chafee

   Cleland

   Clinton

   Cochran

   Collins

   Daschle

   Dayton

   Dodd

   Edwards

   Frist

   Graham

   Gramm

   Grassley

   Gregg

   Harkin

   Hollings

   Hutchinson

   Hutchison

   Inhofe

   Inouye

   Jeffords

   Kennedy

   Kerry

   Kohl

   Landrieu

   Leahy

   Levin

   Lieberman

   Lincoln

   Lott

   Mikulski

   Miller

   Murray

   Nelson (FL)

   Nickles

   Reed

   Reid

   Rockefeller

   Sarbanes

   Schumer

   Sessions

   Shelby

   Smith (NH)

   Snowe

   Specter

   Stabenow

   Stevens

   Thompson

   Voinovich

   Wellstone

   Wyden

   Allard

   Allen

   Baucus

   Bayh

   Bennett

   Biden

   Bingaman

   Boxer

   Brownback

   Bunning

   Burns

   Campbell

   Conrad

   Corzine

   Craig

   Crapo

   DeWine

   Dorgan

   Durbin

   Ensign

   Enzi

   Feingold

   Feinstein

   Fitzgerald

   Hagel

   Hatch

   Helms

   Johnson

   Kyl

   Lugar

   McCain

   McConnell

   Murkowski

   Nelson (NE)

   Roberts

   Santorum

   Smith (OR)

   Thomas

   Thurmond

   Torricelli

   Warner

   Domenici

   The motion was agred to.

   Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

   Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.

   The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

   AMENDMENT NO. 1231

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes evenly divided before a vote on the Schumer amendment.

   Who yields time? The Senator from Idaho.

   Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this is a very contentious amendment. The Senator from Idaho is entitled to be heard.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.

   Mr. BOND. Mr. President, is this a motion to table?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. A motion to table has been made.

   Mr. BOND. Is the first time to be taken by the proponents of the measure or by the proponents of the tabling?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Craig sought recognition in support of the motion to table.

   Mr. BOND. I suggest that Senator Hutchison would wish 30 seconds.

   Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Texas.

   Mrs. HUTCHISON. Not at this time.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order before we proceed.

   The Senator from Idaho.

   Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is my understanding there are 2 minutes equally divided?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

   Mr. CRAIG. Or per side?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute in support of the amendment and 1 minute in opposition.

   Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am speaking on the motion to table the Schumer amendment. Mr. Schumer wishes to allocate $15 million of this appropriation to what we call gun buybacks. He is taking $15 million away from AIDS and the homeless and Native American housing and the revitalization of the public housing.

<<<

>>>

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display